People can debate endlessly whether the New Testament condones war or violence in general. It's really irrelevant to those Christians who do not consider the new testament the be all and end all of Christian doctrine
. Whatever your personal opinion is on the matter it is not a clear cut issue, as the posts on this thread show. The same cannot be said of Buddhism, or at least Theravada Buddhism. There is no canonical Theravada text that condones violence as far as I am aware, unless in personal self-defence. This is an important distinction when talking about historical violence propagated by monks.
I still think the important question comes down to how "a Buddhist" is defined, and what one has to do in order to be/not be considered one. If later or Mahayana texts advocate violence, not that they do, would this be considered Buddhist? Why would this be any less Buddhist than those who teach a subtle atman or other teachings that contradict the Tipitaka.?
Also there is the difference in individuals promoting or inciting violence, and trying to pin Buddhist violence on Buddhism itself, which as I understand it, is the OPs main problem with the idea.
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."